Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Ramnarain Sons Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders: (1) an order dated 13 August 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai, rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in L.E. & C. Suit No.103/123 of 1983; and (2) an order dated 12 September 2025 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, dismissing the revision application against the said order. The petitioner was the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent, the Board of Mumbai Port Authority, seeking possession and mesne profits. The petitioner contended that the suit was barred by limitation and therefore the plaint should be rejected. The court examined the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, which allows rejection of plaint if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The court noted that the suit for possession was based on title and governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a 12-year limitation period from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. The plaint alleged that the defendant was a tenant and that the tenancy was terminated, and the suit was filed within 12 years of such termination. Therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. Regarding mesne profits, the court observed that mesne profits are a recurring claim and each installment is governed by a 3-year period under Article 109 of the Limitation Act. The plaint claimed mesne profits for a period within 3 years prior to the suit, and thus the claim was not time-barred. The court held that the trial court and the revisional court correctly rejected the application for rejection of plaint. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Limitation - The court considered whether a plaint seeking possession and mesne profits is barred by limitation. The court held that the suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a 12-year period from the date of possession becoming adverse. The plaint disclosed that the defendant was a tenant, and the suit was filed within 12 years of the alleged termination of tenancy. Therefore, the plaint was not barred by limitation and could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 2-5) B) Limitation Act - Suit for Possession - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - The court clarified that for a suit for possession based on title, limitation begins when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In this case, the defendant was a tenant, and the suit was filed within 12 years of the alleged termination of tenancy. Hence, the suit was within limitation. (Paras 3-5) C) Mesne Profits - Limitation - The court noted that mesne profits are a recurring claim and each installment is governed by a 3-year period under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The plaint claimed mesne profits for a period within 3 years prior to the suit, and thus the claim was not barred by limitation. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a suit for possession and mesne profits is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned orders dated 13 August 2025 and 12 September 2025 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Limitation
- Mesne Profits
- Suit for Possession
- Article 65 of Limitation Act
- 1963
